Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Apple v. Samsung Was Explained To the Jury

Posted by Soulskill on from the please-don't-laugh-while-the-lawyers-are-speaking dept.

jfruh writes "10 jurors have been sworn in for the Apple v. Samsung case, which is at the heart of the ongoing patent disputes over the companies' smartphones. While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law, the jury is at least in theory supposed to be something of a blank slate. Thus, it's interesting to see the detailed instructions Judge Lucy Koh gave to the jury, covering everything from the differences between utility and design patents to how to measure the credibility of witnesses."

23 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Here's how it was explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one first thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Samsung. Samsung is a electronics maker from the country Japan. But Samsung markets in the country America. Now think about it; that does not make sense!

    Why would Samsung, a Japanese electronics manufacturer, want to market to the United States, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall phones? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major computer company, and I'm talkin' about Samsung! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Samsung lives in Japan, you must convict!

    1. Re:Here's how it was explained by zaphod777 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Isn't Samsung from South Korea?

      --
      "Don't Panic!"
    2. Re:Here's how it was explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That does not make sense!

    3. Re:Here's how it was explained by Grygus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Listening to an argument is meaningless when you do not understand the concepts involved. All the judge did was provide a brief glossary for pertinent terms, like "design patent" and "ornamental design." There is nothing underhanded going on.

    4. Re:Here's how it was explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Think of it this way - instead of Umpire's at a baseball game calling balls/strikes/outs MLB
      decides it would be better for unpartial outsiders to come in and call the game. When they arrive
      they don't know the rules - so on coach argues safe and the other coach argues out but you
      didn't know what safe or out even meant and what actions lead to them it would be hard for
      you to make an informed decision - so before hearing the arguments from opposing coaches
      who (since they are opposing) will be syaing the exact opposite of each other, the league has
      an expert explain all the rules of the game to you and tells you what information to use when
      making your decision (i.e. what you saw/heard, video replay, etc.) and what *not* to consider
      (how loud a coach yells, how much spit is drooling don his chin, etc.)

  2. Oracle vs Google by zaphod777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am hopping that Apple gets smacked own as hard as Oracle did in the Oracle vs Google case. A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design. Plus Samsung had many similar prototypes in the works before the iPhone even debuted.

    --
    "Don't Panic!"
    1. Re:Oracle vs Google by bhagwad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. To my mind, this trial should NOT be about whether Samsung "copied" Apple designs. It's about all of Apple's smartphone "design patents" being invalidated and them being sanctioned for misusing the judicial process by applying for frivolous patents. Then they should also pay Samsung's legal fees and a public apology for being dickheads.

    2. Re:Oracle vs Google by zaphod777 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      http://phandroid.com/2012/07/31/pre-iphone-design-concepts-add-weight-to-samsungs-defense-in-patent-trial/

      --
      "Don't Panic!"
    3. Re:Oracle vs Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the patent office needs to be smacked down a bit, too. This entire class of patents is ridiculous. You shouldn't able to patent a shape unless that shape advances science and the useful arts. Create a 4th dimensional Hypercube? Fine, that deserves a patent. Create a rectangle made of glass an, metal and plastic? Hell no!

    4. Re:Oracle vs Google by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design."

      I shudder to think what, say, the musical instrument market would look like today if the designs of cellos, violins, classical guitars, grand pianos, and countless other instruments with roughly equivalent shapes were similarly protected.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    5. Re:Oracle vs Google by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see her doing that. She seems to be explaining the boundaries of the case that she and the lawyers have "agreed" to, and what the jury needs to decide on. I didn't notice her telling them how to think.

      The fact is the case is so broad and there are so many nits to pick, I'd be surprised if the jury could do anything rational with it.

    6. Re:Oracle vs Google by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Design patents serve a somewhat useful purpose, although I think things like trademark and trade dress serve the purpose better. Just like utility patents, the problem isn't necessarily that they exist, but that USPTO is handing them out like candy. A deliberately minimalistic design with no distinguishing features other than its minimalism shouldn't qualify for a design patent, just as an extremely obvious patent that is just performing an existing operation on a new class of device shouldn't qualify for a utility patent.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:Oracle vs Google by docmordin · · Score: 4, Informative

      A flat rectangle with a touch screen is not a patentable design.

      This is an erroneous claim. To see why, it is instructive to see what the US Patent Office has to say about design patents:

      "A design consists of the visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. Since a design is manifested in appearance, the subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation. A design for surface ornamentation is inseparable from the article to which it is applied and cannot exist alone. It must be a definite pattern of surface ornamentation, applied to an article of manufacture.

      The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. A design patent protects only the appearance of the article and not its structural or utilitarian features. The principal statutes (United States Code) governing design patents are:

      35 USC 171: Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for designs, except as otherwise provided.

      [...]

      35 USC 102: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or (c) he has abandoned the invention, or (d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or (e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122 (b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or (g) (1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 orsection 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

      35 USC 103: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identic

    8. Re:Oracle vs Google by Swampash · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Fender Stratocaster was released in 1954 and totally changed the then-new electric guitar market. You can look at well-known electric guitar designs like the Telecaster and the Les Paul and just SEE that they were created before the Stratocaster was released. And you can look at a metric fucktonne of electric guitar designs and just SEE that they were created AFTER the Stratocaster was released. There's a clear point at which the "before Strat" electric guitar industry became the "after Strat" electric guitar industry. The shape of the Fender Stratocaster - influenced by pre-existing stringed instruments like the cello, but still new and unlike any electric guitar made before - became what electric guitars look like.

      Fender did not pursue the Strat-clone manufacturers in court; and then after attempting to trademark the iconic Statocaster contours decades later, a court ruled in 2009 that "the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with Fender Musical Instruments Corporation". The ruling went so far as to say "in the case of the [Stratocaster] body outline, this configuration is so common that it is depicted as a generic electric guitar in a dictionary." (bolds mine)

      Apple ain't making that mistake.

    9. Re:Oracle vs Google by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those appearance patents are only meant to prevent another companies product being sold in the same guise as the patent holder's product. The point of protection being if people were buying the Samsung product in the mistaken belief it was an iPhone. That should be the only thing viewed by the judge. If people are buying the Samsung product based upon preferring the software Android, then that should be the end of it, they are not confusing the offerings, this is clearly a gross abuse of the intent of design patents.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Oracle vs Google by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The clear issue that stands out there, is that apple's design is neither new, nor original, and therefor not applicable for patent protection.

      As others have pointed out, the combination of "rectangular, thin, with rounded corners and a small bezel border" is not new, and existed in aesthetic designs of personal devices prior to apple's adoption of the aesthetic feature set.

      Apple is more claiming that it has taken the old and made it its own, which is now an apple signature appearance-- sure, they can do that, but that falls under trade dress and trade mark, not patent. Similarly to marvel owning red and blue packaging with a spiderweb motif for spiderman products. Making a generic product called "arachnaboy" and packaging it in red and blue blister packs with spiderweb motifs is a trade dress violation. Not a patent violation.

      Apple should not have been granted this patent, due to prior art for other personal electronic devices. Claiming "but never a phone or tablet computer!" Does not magically make the aesthetic design novel, nor new.

      I hope apple gets their precious little patent used as toilet paper, because in its current form it is completely without value.

  3. Hahaha! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While most Slashdot readers are familiar with many of the facts of the case and the law...

    Hahaha!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  4. Re:Judge Lucy Koh by guises · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't know what his bias is, but the facts are that she granted an injunction against the sale of Samsung phones on the basis of a few very weak patents. The strongest of which, apparently, was a search function that could search both the local phone and the internet at the same time.

    I am not optimistic about this case.

  5. Function based design by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front.
    You want to minimize cost. Ok as few elements as possible
    You want to use it flat on a desk. Ok it will be flat in the back.
    You want it to fit in a pocket. Ok it will be rectangular. .... form follows function. Similar function means similar form.

    1. Re:Function based design by Swampash · · Score: 4, Informative

      You want a screen on the front. Ok it will be flat in front.
      You want to minimize cost. Ok as few elements as possible
      You want to use it flat on a desk. Ok it will be flat in the back.
      You want it to fit in a pocket. Ok it will be rectangular. .... form follows function. Similar function means similar form.

      Yet strangely enough no-one actually did all this totally-obvious stuff with a phone before the iPhone was released.

    2. Re:Function based design by Swampash · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ever looked at the nokia-line? 3310? 8850? And a zillion other phones just like that?

      What, you mean phones that are NOT flat on the front, have LOTS of interface elements (shit, count the frickin' buttons), are NOT flat in the back, and are NOT rectangular - and in the case of the 8850, actually change shape and size depending on what you're doing at the time?

  6. Re:Judge Lucy Koh by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would argue that apple's design patent is invalid.

    Here is why, and it has nothing to do with opinion of apple:

    A design patent can only be legally issued for "unique, new, and novel" shapes and design motifs.

    Apple's idevice designs are none of those. They basically looked at a cheap plastic picture frame, and copied it.

    Many consumer products come in this form factor, and have for a very long time. Here are some examples:

    Chinese dry erase board, tablet size

    Wooden round cornered picture frames

    aluminum picture frame, chinese

    For reference, here is what the iPad looks like.

    complimentary iPad image

    The color of the inactive display (black) is not a design feature. It is a feature of how the technology works.

    I have seen plastic picture frames that are flat out strikingly like the iPad in aesthetic design in art stores since the late 80s, when plastic really became popular as a choice. If you are showcasing an image, using a picture frame as an aesthetic inspiration is a no-brainer.

    Apple should not have been granted this patent.

  7. Re:Judge Lucy Koh by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It could very easily exist in the form of a digital picture frame, which would then look very much like an idevice, and be a digital device.

    Claiming "but not in a digital device!" Is like claiming "On the internet!" Or "On a computer!" In a patent for something done commonly for years, as if it were not obvious.

    While comonly granted, such protections should not have been enacted.